CA Unpub Decisions

By petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, it was alleged that appellant Eduardo J. had committed felony battery and robbery. Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found Eduardo had committed two lesser included offenses: misdemeanor battery on a school employee and attempted grand theft from the person (Pen. Code, SS 243.6, 487). The juvenile court ordered Eduardo home on probation, with a maximum confinement time of one year and ten months. Eduardo appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence to sustain either finding.
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, by jury trial, for aggravated assault by a life prisoner, with prior serious felony and Three Strikes enhancement findings (Pen. Code, SS 4500, 667, subd. (a)(i)). Sentenced to state prison for 22 years to life, Jacobs claims there was trial and sentencing error. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a negotiated plea of no contest to possessing a controlled substance, cocaine in the base form. (Health and Saf. Code, S 11350, subd. (a).) Before entering his plea, defendant moved to suppress evidence, which was denied. (Pen. Code, S 1538.5.) Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court sentenced defendant to an upper term of three years in state prison, to be served concurrently with the three year prison term imposed in a pending unrelated probation violation matter, superior court case No. NA063527. Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his suppression motion. He argues that the officers had no probable cause to believe that he possessed the illicit narcotics and that the officers used unreasonable force to compel him to spit out the three rocks of base cocaine he was carrying in his mouth. The contention lacks merit, and Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of carjacking (Pen. Code, S 215, subd. (a)) and the trial court's findings Smith previously had been convicted of three serious felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, SS 667, subd. (a)(1), (b) (i); 1170.12, subds. (a) (d)) and had served two prison terms (Pen. Code, S 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court struck two of Smith's Three Strikes prior convictions and sentenced him to a term of 20 years in state prison.
Smith contends (1) he was denied due process of law and his conviction must be reversed because there is insufficient evidence to support his guilt as the actual perpetrator of the carjacking and the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the intent required for guilt as an aider and abettor and (2) the trial court erred by denying his motions for acquittal and a new trial. Court affirm the judgment.

This action arises out of the dissolution of a long term marriage. Appellant (husband) challenges certain findings of the trial court, including the characterization of various retirement and savings accounts as community property and the award of permanent spousal support to respondent Victoria E. Kerrigan (wife). Court find that substantial evidence does not support the characterization of husband's savings account as community property and that he should not be ordered to reimburse wife half of this account. In all other respects, court affirm the judgment.

In this case, court must decide whether, among other things, Penal Code section 654 prohibits multiple punishment where appellant was convicted of both burglary (S 459) and forgery (S 470, subd. (d)) when he stole a check, falsely made it out, then entered a check cashing service business with the intent to pass the forged check. Court conclude that appellant committed the acts in an indivisible course of conduct in pursuit of a single criminal objective, and the trial court erred in failing to stay the sentence for the forgery conviction.
Appellant appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty on January 6, 2006, of second degree commercial burglary in violation of section 459 and forgery in violation of section 470, subdivision (d). Appellant admitted that he had previously suffered prior felony convictions and that he had served prior prison terms for violation of section 422 and Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a).
In the methamphetamine matter, the trial court denied probation and imposed a sentence of two years eight months, consisting of the low term of 16 months, doubled for the prior strike, in accordance with the terms of the plea bargain.
Court agree that the trial court must be ordered to amend the abstract of judgment to conform to the trial court's pronouncement of judgment. (People v. Mitchell (2002) 26 Cal.4th 181, 188.)

Minor, X. L., her mother (Mother) and father (Father) appeal the trial court's order continuing detention of X. L. away from her parents made after a six-month review hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e). The court found that returning her to the parents' custody posed a risk of detriment to her safety. Court find that the trial court's order is supported by substantial evidence and affirm.

On a prior appeal, court affirmed an order denying Julieta L.'s petition to reinstate reunification services. (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 388; In re Lisa Marie L. (Oct. 27, 2006, B189917) [nonpub. opn.].) On this appeal, Julieta challenges subsequent orders (I) denying her petition to vacate the order terminating reunification services and (II) terminating Julieta's parental rights over Lisa L., her daughter. (SS 388, 366.26.) Court affirm.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered after conviction following his negotiated plea of no contest to eight counts of second degree robbery. Appellant also admitted Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b) allegations with respect to four counts. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced him to 32 years in prison.
In appellant's notice of appeal, he referred to counsel's failure to file a suppression motion and claimed this constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. While this claim might be cognizable without a certificate of probable cause, nothing in the record supports it.
Court have examined the entire record and appellant's contentions, and have not found any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

Mother of the minor, appeals from orders granting her Marsden motion and continuing the selection and implementation hearing and, in a separate appeal, from orders terminating her parental rights (Welf. and Inst. Code, SS 395, 366.26 [further undesignated statutory references are to this code]). At appellant's request court granted consolidation of case No. C053238 and case No. C053725 because the identical issue was raised in both cases. In both cases, appellant contends reversal is required because the court and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. S 1901 et seq.). Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, S 192, subd. (a)), during which he used a firearm. (Pen. Code, S 12022.5, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to prison for 10 years and appeals, claiming self defense was established as a matter of law, his trial attorney was incompetent, and jury instruction error occurred. Defendant also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus reasserting and adding to his incompetency of trial counsel argument. Court have considered the latter with this appeal to determine if an order to show cause should issue. Court reject all of defendant's contentions and therefore affirm the judgment while denying the petition.

Pamela Waters (Waters) appeals from the judgment granting a petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., S 1094.5) sought by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department), acting through its Director, Jeanne Woodford, to overturn a final decision of the California State Personnel Board (the Board). The trial court held that the Board erred as a matter of law when it dismissed, as defective, an adverse action imposed upon Waters for lack of proper service. The Board had found that procedural compliance with the applicable service statute is a prerequisite to taking an adverse action against a state employee. The trial court disagreed, finding that because Waters received actual notice of the adverse action, filed an appeal with the Board to challenge the imposed adverse action, and appeared before the Board, the Board could no longer dismiss the adverse action for lack of procedural compliance with the service statute. Thus, the trial court ordered reinstatement of the adverse action against Waters.
On appeal, court are asked to determine whether the Board can dismiss an adverse action imposed upon a state employee whose service by mail technically failed to comply with section 18575, when such state employee appeals the imposed adverse action to the Board and appears before the Board regarding such action.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the premeditated and deliberate first degree murder of Jimmie Lee, and of discharging a firearm in the commission of the murder. (Pen. Code, SS 187, subd. (a), 189, 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court found that defendant had two prior strike convictions. (S 667, subds (b)(i).) Defendant was sentenced to 100 years to life, consisting of 75 years to life for the first degree murder conviction, plus 25 years to life for the discharge enhancement.
Defendant appeals. Defendant contends: (1) insufficient evidence supports the finding that the murder was premeditated and deliberate; (2) CALJIC No. 8.73 was "inadequate and confusing" because the jury was not instructed on manslaughter and was not instructed on what extent, if any, evidence of provocation can negate a finding of premeditation and deliberation; and (3) the giving of both CALJIC Nos. 2.01 and 2.02 prejudiced his defense that the murder was neither premeditated nor deliberate. Court find each of these contentions without merit. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendants Vivian and Javier Moreno appeal the trial court's denial of their motion for relief from default. Defendants argue the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion because the defaults entered against them were the result of a mistake of law and/or excusable neglect. Defendant also contends the default taken against him should have been set aside by the trial court because he has a meritorious defense to the action. The judgment is affirmed.